Because of the complexities of the system, the only way it can work is by consensus. There will be no progress until the consensus returns, or one side overthrows the other. The hardliners are infinitely more capable of overthrowing any opposition within the system. The wisest US short term policy would therefore be to promote reconciliation. So I suppose you could say the US needs a policy of change within the regime, rather than regime change.

I think you are either misreading the politics in Iran or perhaps you have misunderstood what I meant in general.

The biggest threat to Iran is not from within but from outside.

I also disagree with your comment regarding the green movement.

The green movement with help and assistance from CIA and Mossad could represent a real risk to the regime in the years to come.

The fact that Mousavi’s campaign was bankrolled by corrupt Hashemi-Rafsanjani should tell the Iranian people something about the green movement.

For the past 31 years, Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani, have belonged to the same regime with more or less same ideology, the only difference between them is that Rafsanjani is corrupt and still hungry for power but Ahmadinejad has proved to be incorruptible.

Although the rift between them is now enormous but if the existence and survival of the regime as a whole, is threatened, they will compromise.

The whole consensus style of government in Iran has broken down. Until it is repaired, things will drift. Khamenei has to put it back together. In addition, Ahmadinejad is faced with having to introduce these new laws phasing out subsidies in April which are going to be deeply unpopular, and he will be under enormous pressure when he does so. He could yet be the fall guy, or the subsidies issue could be the way to bring the consensus back. But Khamenei has to walk the middle road or there could be big problems.

It is becoming more and more important for the US to have a passive Iran with a full fuel cycle in order to counter Israeli strategic dominance. Diplomatically, they can pull that off no problem. All that is required is for the US to make the single concession of endorsing Iranian enrichment, and that can be done as part of a comprehensive agreement with a variety of Iranian concessions which they have already indicated they are prepared to make.

Thirty years of Islamic fundamentalist rule, however, have generated significant political opposition throughout Iran. This has gradually coalesced into the Green Movement that has been on display since the June 2009 presidential election. In contrast to the Revolution of 1979, what the world has been watching for the past eight months is a movement that seeks a democratic transition to a government that respects pluralism and human rights. While this has been taking place, the focus of the U.S. government and most of the media remains on Iran’s nuclear program and the possible dangers it poses for the world.

Perhaps the Iranian regime’s repression over the past eight months, replete with the deaths of about 100 people in the streets, further deaths due to torture and executions, mass arrests of thousands of opposition supporters, harsh prison sentences, and the banning of all opposition media, pales in comparison to the loss of life in neighboring Iraq. But this is the story of a people who have endured three decades of repression, fear, the squandering of their national interests, and the humiliation of their country by the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It might be hard to appreciate how widespread and deep-rooted is the discontent among freedom-seeking, peaceful Iranians with the current regime, but denial of this fact leads to distorted, ideologically skewed interpretations of Iranian politics and society. While Iranians certainly want to see diplomatic relations re-established between their country and the United States, they do not wish to see this happen at the price of ignoring systematic human rights violations, including the executions of political prisoners. The actions of this regime against its own people are tantamount to crimes against humanity, and those responsible for these crimes must one day be brought to justice.

Translated by Nader Hashemi.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/02/akbar-ganji-on-post-imperialism-in-iran.html

The charge of “Election rigging” and “nuclear weapons” are used as an excuse to brainwash the American people and the international public opinion and to justify imposing sanctions or even a military attack.

As long as Israel lobby remains in power in Washington, there will never be a policy change towards Iran.

In my opinion, Israel is the root of all the problems.

The western governments have destroyed Iraq and will destroy Iran for the sake and well-being of Israel.

USA and Israel are brainwashing and manipulating Iranian people.

Now, CIA and Mossad are using the green movement as a tool for their ultimate objective, which are a regime change and the establishment of a US/Israel poppet government in Iran.

The fact that Mousavi’s campaign was bankrolled by corrupt Hashemi-Rafsanjani should tell the readers something.

Rafsanjani was president for 9 years. What did he do for Iran? We all know what he did for himself, he raped Iran of its resources, now out of power and desperate to get back into power, he is bankrolling Mosavi’s campaign.

Rafsanjani / Mousavi don’t have a nationalistic agenda…they want to roll back the clock and go against the grain of the Islamic Republic and appease the west while providing anecdotal freedom to Iranians under the umbrella of reform…they want to continue to rape Iran of its resources.

There is not much difference between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani/mosavi except that Ahmadinejad is incorruptible.

He leads a “modest” life as president; he wanted to continue living in the same house in Tehran as his family had been living in, until his security advisers insisted that he move.

All the problems started four years ago when Ahmadinejad defeated Rafsanjani and immediately announced that he is fighting corruption.

His message was indirectly addressed to Rafsanjani and his gang in the government.

This was the time when a major rift appeared between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani the result of which we all witnessed in the June’s presidential debate.

In my opinion, Iran needs a reform, not a revolution but knowing what the alternative would do to Iranian pride and nationalistic ambitions I would stick with Ahmadinejad until a proper opposition with a credible leader is formed.

I wish all Iranians to be able to challenge the system in a constructive manner by none violent demonstration and definitely without the help and assistance of USA and Israel.

He will do the same thing GWB did with North Korea will bark for while and walks away and the US media and folks like yourself will spin it for US public that we won, same thing has started by VP Biden about Iraq prior to leaving in shame this summer, in past few days we are hearing that we now have won in Iraq great bravo us.

“Surely occur”? Nah, this administration isn’t going to do it, for the reasons I stated. “Painting himself into a corner”? You don’t know much about American politics, or the American public’s attention span, if you think any American politician, especially one as talented as Barack Obama, is going get himself into that position. Unless it’s a sex scandel, of course. But I really don’t see a sex scandel in B.O.’s future.

I’m certain Obama won’t recapitulate G.W.B’s strategy.

I’m trying to objectively assess the situation, based on my knowledge and experience. Could I be wrong? Sure. But I don’t think so. I think the biggest weakness in your argument is that you are advocating for a particular position, whether you care to admit it or not. I have a preferred position that I’d like to see the U.S. get to, but in the final analysis, I merely observe.